Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the CBI on 26th February 2023 and by the ED on 9th March 2023 in connection with alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi's Excise Policy for 2021-22. The CBI filed a charge-sheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC, while the ED filed a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant's first bail applications were rejected by the High Court and this Court on 30th October 2023, with liberty to apply afresh if trial was not concluded within 6-8 months or if it proceeded at a snail's pace. The appellant filed second bail applications before the trial court and High Court, which were rejected on the ground of no change in circumstances. The appellant then approached this Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the delay in trial was attributable to the appellant himself, who filed over a hundred applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C. at the pre-charge stage, contrary to the law in P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Court found that the appellant failed to satisfy the triple conditions under Section 45 PMLA, as the prosecution had made out a prima facie case and the appellant was likely to commit further offences. The Court also rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, noting that liberty was granted to revive the prayer after filing of final complaint/charge-sheet.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 45 - Triple Conditions - Delay in Trial - The appellant sought bail on the ground that trial was not concluded within 6-8 months as directed by this Court. The Court held that the delay was caused by the appellant himself by filing over a hundred applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C. at the pre-charge stage, contrary to the law laid down in P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu. Since the appellant failed to satisfy the triple conditions under Section 45 PMLA, bail was denied. (Paras 22-25)
B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Delay in Trial - Protraction by Accused - The Court observed that the appellant did not file a discharge application but instead filed numerous applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C., which were intended to delay framing of charges. The appellant cannot take benefit of his own wrong in protracting the trial. (Paras 22-23)
C) Criminal Law - Bail - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 45 - Prima Facie Case - The Court noted that in its earlier order dated 30th October 2023, it had already considered the merits and found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case. The subsequent filing of supplementary complaints did not change this position. (Paras 20-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial when the delay is attributable to the appellant's own conduct of filing multiple applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and not filing discharge application.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, rejecting the appellant's prayer for bail. The Court held that the delay in trial was attributable to the appellant's own conduct of filing frivolous applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and that he failed to satisfy the triple conditions under Section 45 PMLA. The Court also rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability.
Law Points
- Bail
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act
- 2002
- Section 45
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Delay in trial
- Protraction by accused
- Triple conditions for bail
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024) with Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8772 of 2024)
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for appellant), Shri Suryaprakash V. Raju (for respondent)
Directorate of Enforcement
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against rejection of bail applications in cases under PMLA and PC Act arising from Delhi Excise Policy irregularities.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought bail in connection with ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 and FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022.
Filing Reason
Appellant was arrested by CBI and ED for alleged corruption and money laundering in framing and implementation of Delhi's Excise Policy 2021-22.
Previous Decisions
First bail applications rejected by High Court on 30th May 2023 (CBI) and 3rd July 2023 (ED); this Court rejected on 30th October 2023 with liberty to apply afresh if trial not concluded in 6-8 months. Second bail applications rejected by trial court on 30th April 2024 and High Court on 21st May 2024.
Issues
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial when the delay is attributable to the appellant's own conduct.
Whether the appellant satisfied the triple conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA for grant of bail.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that trial was not concluded within 6-8 months as directed, and that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case. He also submitted that the investigation was incomplete and voluminous documents and witnesses would cause further delay.
Respondent argued that the appellant himself caused delay by filing over a hundred applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C. at pre-charge stage, and that the triple conditions under Section 45 PMLA were not satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
An accused cannot take benefit of delay in trial if the delay is caused by his own conduct of filing frivolous applications. For grant of bail under PMLA, the accused must satisfy the triple conditions under Section 45: (i) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; and (iii) the prosecution has made out a prima facie case. The appellant failed to satisfy these conditions.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court and the High Court have specifically come to a finding that the appellant has delayed the pre-charge proceedings by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The appellant cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the same [delay] when he himself is responsible for protracting the trial.
Procedural History
FIR registered by CBI on 17th August 2022; ED case registered on 22nd August 2022. Appellant arrested by CBI on 26th February 2023 and by ED on 9th March 2023. First bail applications rejected by High Court on 30th May 2023 (CBI) and 3rd July 2023 (ED); this Court rejected on 30th October 2023 with liberty to apply afresh. Second bail applications rejected by trial court on 30th April 2024 and High Court on 21st May 2024. Appellant filed SLPs which were disposed of on 4th June 2024 with liberty to revive after filing of final complaint/charge-sheet. Present appeals filed thereafter.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: Section 3, Section 45
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 7, Section 7A, Section 8, Section 12
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 420, Section 201, Section 120B
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 207
